-2

This question already has an answer here:

I have a question about my Philosophy Stack Exchange post:
[Deductively sound formal proofs of mathematical logic?]
(Deductively sound formal proofs of mathematical logic?)

I really need peer review. I have been working on this for 22 years. I am finally at the point where the value of my work can be understood. I just need people to point out anything that think might be an error. This is has more limited scope than simply am I right.

This is a very limited scope peer review. I am not asking for everyone to carefully examine everything that I said and point to all of the errors. Simply point to the single largest mistake.

marked as duplicate by Eliran, curiousdannii, virmaior, Frank Hubeny, Conifold Jun 25 at 17:37

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

6

This is not the place for peer review. This was already made clear here.

This is not the place for doing philosophy, as was pointed out for example here.

Besides that, you do not need peer review. There is no idea discernible in your question. There are only sentences with too many unnecessary adjectives and misuse of logical formalism.

  • I am pretty sure that I already got approval for a very limited scope peer review from a moderator: Can you point out one mistake with the following: X – PL_OLCOTT May 31 at 16:27
  • I am pretty sure that I already got approval for a very limited scope peer review from a moderator ??? really? which moderator? where? – virmaior Jun 3 at 7:48
  • 1
    @virmaior I guess he refers to me. I had made clear that peer review has no place here because the format of the site does not fit. The "very limited scope" thing might refer to the fact that I have said that if he is able to reframe certain aspects of what he aims to have clarified via peer review so that there is a genuine question on a specific problem that can be answered using existing literature or established logical rules, there might be a chance that he gets help here. Not that this would have happened so far. – Philip Klöcking Jun 3 at 11:01
3

If you are trying to show

Thus Gödel's G logic sentence does not exist.

and Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman in Godel's Proof write as if it does exist then there is likely a mistake somewhere, but finding it may not be easy.

I would recommend asking questions related to that Nagel and Newman book and not directly try to focus on this one question. Stepping back from it may give you more perspective.

I don't know where the mistake is, but I assume there is a mistake somewhere.

  • I have a copy of the book and carefully studied it, compared to this formalism every other source in the world is a convoluted mess: I worked directly with this University of Tampere Professor: Panu Raatikainen PhD To derive this formalization of the paragraph shown below from his SEP article: ∀F (F ∈ Formal_Systems & Q ⊆ F) → ∃G ∈ L(F) (G ↔ (~(F ⊢ G) ∧ ~(F ⊢ ~G))) He is the author of this SEP article and has several published papers in the field: plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness – PL_OLCOTT May 31 at 16:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .